On Oct 12, 12:56 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Sorry? Django importing magic? "from app.models import MyModel"... is magic?
I didn't say "model importing". I'm talking about things like the
restrictions on what you can import in settings.py, and ticket #8193
(double imports).
> If you're re
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> However, I can't recall the last time that someone asked the general
>> question of how to avoid a name collision between their two tagging
>> (or whatever) applications.
>
> I don't reca
On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> If you can name a company that has produced more in-house Django
> applications than the number that is publicly available for download
> off the internet, I'll eat my hat. :-)
That isn't the right measure. I'm just saying that the total number o
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:46, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Hanne Moa wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 13:51, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wrote:
>>> Looking at #3591 in particular - another big part of the problem is
>>> that the ticket tries to solve a theoret
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 9:52 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>>
>> This is true, but again, the distinction between theoretical and
>> practical problem emerges. The set of mainstream apps in the
On Oct 11, 9:52 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> This is true, but again, the distinction between theoretical and
> practical problem emerges. The set of mainstream apps in the wild is
> much larger than the set of in house apps controlled
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 12:46 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> If I may ask - which apps (or app names) caused the collision? Off the
>> top of my head, I can't think of any especially mainstream application
>
> Considering just "mainstream" applicat
On Oct 11, 12:46 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> If I may ask - which apps (or app names) caused the collision? Off the
> top of my head, I can't think of any especially mainstream application
Considering just "mainstream" applications would appear to discount
any applications which are develop
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Hanne Moa wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 13:51, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> Looking at #3591 in particular - another big part of the problem is
>> that the ticket tries to solve a theoretical problem that, in
>> practice, doesn't really exist - that of na
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 13:51, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Looking at #3591 in particular - another big part of the problem is
> that the ticket tries to solve a theoretical problem that, in
> practice, doesn't really exist - that of namespace collisions in
> applications.
That's funny, has hap
On Oct 10, 12:51 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> It isn't just a matter of core developers not having enough time to
> review a specific patch - it's that there is a lot more design work
> required.
[snip]
> In the case of #3591, there is still a lot of design work required.
> That design disc
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
>> While it may not be *technically* too late to get the feature on the
>> voting list, my Magic 8-ball predicts that any vote on #3591 will have
>> the same result as last time - Rejected, needs more design work.
>>
>> All the serious proposa
> While it may not be *technically* too late to get the feature on the
> voting list, my Magic 8-ball predicts that any vote on #3591 will have
> the same result as last time - Rejected, needs more design work.
>
> All the serious proposals for v1.2 on the wiki have had extensive (and
> recent) di
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 6:44 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> We're still gathering feature requests for 1.2
>> (seehttp://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.2Features), but we're
>> going to work voting differently. Instead of categorizing features
>>
On Oct 8, 6:44 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> We're still gathering feature requests for 1.2
> (seehttp://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.2Features), but we're
> going to work voting differently. Instead of categorizing features
> into "must-have / should-have / pony" categories, we're goin
Hi folks --
Yup, it's that time again!
For the tl;dr-ers, here's the short version:
* We're aiming to release Django 1.2 on March 9th, 2010.
* We'll begin voting on features for 1.2 very soon (today or tomorrow).
* We're modifying the process slightly from last time; in particular,
we're going
16 matches
Mail list logo
